Farnn

February 25th, 2012 at 3:51 PM ^

Would be amazing to get him, though I won't get my hopes up til he actually visits.  For a while I was thinking that we had a pretty good idea of who the players in the top 100 the staff had a shot with, but it's nice to hear about more players that the coaches are getting to take a real look at Michigan.  I'd think the 13 commits by March(so far) has to be helping to just generate attention.

Elmer

February 25th, 2012 at 3:51 PM ^

Yah, I think I'd be OK with Rivals #21 player in the country.  As long as he finds a buddy, since we only take recruits in pairs.  Could someone please put him in contact with Ty Isaac.

Logan

February 25th, 2012 at 5:08 PM ^

Jaron Dukes needed a buddy and got Kugler 3 days after his own commitment, well under the 5-day timeframe restriction in Hoke's Buddy System. Waivers are sometimes granted under extenuating circumstances, but it's a pretty strict system.

ChiBlueBoy

February 25th, 2012 at 3:56 PM ^

...Would love to see us bring in a monster DL next. With our OL and Shane, I can't imagine not snagging a top RB and WR. Yes, I'm getting greedy. I won't apologize.

denardogasm

February 25th, 2012 at 4:30 PM ^

Are we gonna get an explanation of that weirdness or just continue on with our day? When I saw it I was battling between being annoyed, entertained, and excited that maybe we had filled our class and blown up the internets.

denardogasm

February 25th, 2012 at 4:32 PM ^

I was wondering when we were going to get going on some big time DL prospects.  It seems a little strange to me that with our great DL coaching, we've lit up the recruiting trail on the opposite side of the line.  Not complaining, but a little bit greedy.  I love me some Hulk on the DL.

StephenRKass

February 25th, 2012 at 5:34 PM ^

I'm not 100% sure where I read this, but it might have been in one of the coaching clinic reports. Apparently, Mattison, Hoke, & Montgomery have a fascinating strategy, which they already employed this year. Namely, on the defensive line, they are willing to have a bunch of guys who shuttle in and out all game, and maybe are 3 stars instead of 4 or 5 star guys. The idea is that they are good enough to coach up some lesser rated guys, and the rotation keeps guys fresh. It also protects you in case you are hit with injuries. Mattison wasn't a fan of this strategy, but this was Hoke's thing. However, Mattison has come around. He said that the platooning all year really saved them in the Sugar Bowl when Van Bergen got hurt.

The long and short of it is that they are definitely going to recruit the DL, but they want a bunch of moldable guys who are solid, well condtioned, and not full of themselves.

I found this to be fascinating. I might just have to search for where I read this. I think that at QB, or WR, or RB, or TE, you only have so much room for PT. Some of our current verbal commits have already stated they are coming to Michigan because we are thin at their position, and they can say getting early playing time, and plenty of it.

The philosophy is very different on the DL. The line takes such a physical toll that they want to avoid having someone playing every play.

By analogy, think of hockey. No matter how good someone is, you have to come off the ice for a breather. So you have 3 lines. Maybe the first line gets more PT, but you still have 3 lines getting on the ice a lot. I think that they are moving toward something like this with the DL.

T4L

February 25th, 2012 at 5:42 PM ^

You're mixing two things up. I don't remember hearing about the 3-star strategy, but the rotation thing you're thinking of is from a coaching clinic regarding practice. They would sub out the whole defense after every play and have them run off the field and back on it for the next play. Mattison didn't necessarily agree with it at the beginning, but eventually grew to like it. This in-practice conditioning is what they attribute to helping the likes of Van Bergen and Martin not die in the Sugar Bowl, as well as getting reps for the 2nd team D against the 1st team O, so they're also more prepared for game situations.

StephenRKass

February 25th, 2012 at 5:54 PM ^

I know it sounds like two different things, but it was "hinted" at.

Caveat:  obviously, Mattison, Montgomery, and Hoke will recruit and take 5 star DL talents. However, the quote said (more or less) that you are better off with MORE guys (having slightly less star power) than having a couple stars, and not much depth behind them. I'll find it for you.

mschol17

February 25th, 2012 at 5:43 PM ^

You're confused here.  The rotation aspect Mattison questioned was that every play during practice the d line ran off the field, to build up conditioning.  The Sugar Bowl, with all the injuries, highlighted that this additional conditioning worked and Martin and Van Bergen could play the entire game.

I'm pretty sure there was nothing in there about preferring 3 stars vs 4 or 5 stars.

 

 

FreddieMercuryHayes

February 25th, 2012 at 5:44 PM ^

Not sure where you heard that, but a lot of subbing has been Mattison's thing for a while. He always wanted "6 starters" on the D-line at Florida so everyone could go 110%, then take a breather when needed. Probably why they got so many D-linemen last class. I personally think it's a great idea, as long as you still have some ironmen like MM and RVB to anchor you.